I just signed a petition calling for Norwegian universities to use research expertise on AI when deciding how to implement it, rather than having decisions be made mostly administratively. , If you are a researcher in Norway, please read it and sign it if you agree – and share with anyone else who might be interested. The petition was written by three researchers at UiT: Maria Danielsen (a philosopher who completed her PhD in 2025 on AI and ethics, including discussions of art and working life), Knut Ørke (Norwegian as a second language), and Holger Pötzsch (a professor of media studies with many years of research on digital media, video games, disruption, and working life, among other topics). This is not about preventing researchers from exploring AI methods in their research. It is about not uncritically accepting the hype that everyone must use AI everywhere without critical reflection. It is about not introducing Copilot as the default option in word processors, or training PhD candidates to believe they will fall behind if they do not use AI when writing articles, without proper academic discussion. Changes like these should be knowledge-based and discussed academically, not merely decided administratively, because they alter the epistemological foundations of research. Maria wrote to me a couple of months ago because she had read my opinion piece in Aftenposten in which I called for a strong brake on the use of language models in knowledge work. She was part of a committee tasked with developing UiT’s AI strategy and was concerned because there was so much hype and so few members of the committee with actual expertise in AI. I fully support the petition. There are probably some good uses for AI in research, but the uncritical, hype-driven insistence that we must simply adopt it everywhere is highly risky. There are many researchers in Norway with strong expertise in AI, language, ethics, working life, and culture. We must make use of this expertise. This is also partly about respect for research in the humanities, social sciences, psychology, and law. Introducing AI at universities and university colleges is not merely a technical issue, and perhaps not even primarily a technical one. It concerns much more: philosophy of science, methodological reflection, epistemology, writing, publishing, the working environment, and more. […]
Liz
Hmmmm. Can’t find anywhere that it restricts experts to citizens of EU countries. Wonder if they allow US experts? (In the PDF version of the call, they do specifically say that they want to have at least 40% women in their database, and encourage applications from qualified women.)
Jill
I can’t find it now, but I’m sure I read somewhere in all of this that anyone can apply. They want balanced committees in terms of gender, nationality and experience, and might use non-Europeans as well, it said.
Only I can’t find where it said so 🙂
Carl Robert Blesius
Sounds like fun, but I hesitate because it might disqualify the “expert” from getting EU funding. Could not find anything on the site about that.
Jill
Didn’t it say you were only disqualified from being an expert on a program you’re involved in? I think that was either in the F.A.Q. or in the PDF you could download about it?
Anonymous
I signed up too, it would be interesting to get to see the underbelly of EU, it has a big influence on our life in Europe and I have no clue of how it works (Susana). ^_^
Jill
Cool, Susana! Yeah, I agree, it’d be useful to understand – and, uh, “master”, the EU. Kind of complicated, I suspect, but perhaps if we just take it step by step…
Mathemagenic
How to advise EU and do research in other countries
Jill Walker :”cit”Did you know an individual can sign up as a potential expert advisor to the EU’s research programs ? You register your field, what you’d be willing to do (review proposals, monitor existing programs, etc) and if they need someone in your
Collin vs. Blog
Expertise, anyone?
Jill Walker has a post today about signing up to serve as an expert EU advisor, for reviewing proposals, programs, et al., and it put me in mind of another of my pet peeves with respect to our own organization…